T Nation

A Question for Health Care Supporters


Suppose pioneer "A" has a sick horse for his wagon, He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra healthy horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune, Is he entitled to take his take his neighbor's horse? If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property..., can he delegate any such power to the government?


Answer C.)

Pioneer C has 240 horses. He could share 1 horse and save Pioneer A, but their his horses and he worked hard for them (inherited all of them - horse interest). Instead of saving Pioneer A, Pioneer C chooses the "Fuck thy neighbor" approach, because at the end of the day, why the fuck should he care about anyone else, as long as he has a waterfront property and a Ferrari?


Macro and micro economics don't really translate. Pioneer B would be a total asshole leaving pioneer A by the side of the wagon trail with his dead horse. Also, assuming they're going to the same place, it would probably behoove B to help out A. But no the government should force B to give a horse to A.

However, according to Mr. Paul (and you John S.) it would okay for the government to force this, as long as it was a state, county, or local government and not the evil feds.


More Phuckin Genius :slightly_smiling:


States rights. I would not agree with a state doing something like that so I wouldn't live in a state that did something like that.

You would find people like Pittbull that would live in a state like that. Remember people who think that it is ok to steal actually do exist, and it would be best if they all lived in the same state and left us the hell alone.


3 main points in opposition of HCR Bill:

1) It's socialism
2) It's a gov't takeover
3) CBO #'s are a lie.

There may be legitimate problems with this bill, but these are the points Republicans chose to harp on.

I am not a bleeding heart liberal though I have been categorized as such on this board. I would have been swayed by reasonable Republican arguments, but simply calling something socialism, particularly when it is not, isn't sufficient. By being obstructionist, Republicans lost a chance to be a part of meaningful reform. If you feel that this is a bad bill for whatever reason, you should be angry at your representatives, John, not Dems and Obama.


So pioneer a and b get together with C and take a vote on what pioneer c can do with his property. A and B vote to take half of pioneer Cs horses (by gunpoint if he refuses). Because C lost half of his horses he has to cancel half of his shipping business (what the horses were formerly doing) and he then has to down size his workforce laying off pioneers D through ZZZ (drivers, product handlers, stable staff). Now transportation costs in the area triple due to lack of supply. As a result prices at the local general store go through the roof. At this point people stop buying as many things and other local businesses begin to close. Pioneer C also no longer has extra money to donate to the church and the church's humanitarian relief programs close.

It is absolutely asinine to think that rich people's money is kept under their mattress and benefits no one but themselves. The reality is that rich people invest their money (that's why they are rich (horse interest would actually mean that the money was in some way invested and therefore helping society)). They create wealth producing jobs, provide funding for business, fund research, donate large amounts to good causes, ect.


Why are you calling me a Republican?

Republicans are going to destroy this bill and many other entitlements when they get in office, they are beginning to wake up to the fact that we are about to go off a cliff. If they don't do the job the people will find a 3rd party to do the job.

The only thing historic about this bill was the death of the democrats and rise of the progressives.


Socialism's endgame is redistribution of wealth along lines of "fairness". This bill is designed to promote this endgame within the resource space of health care. The individual mandate is the perfect example of this - forcing people to "pay in" so that others may get cheaper health care.

It is the stalking horse of a government takeover - don't take my word for it, listen to the "progressives" themselves. It would be a government takeover if they had the votes for it.

They aren't a "lie", the CBO scored the numbers appropriately - the presentation of the bill is a lie. It double counts a cut in Medicare spending, it deliberately postpones expenses for four years (while scoring for ten years revenue), and it doesn't include the "doctor fix", which will be a separate bill, but only to keep the CBO scoring deliberately low.

The CBO also has to take all bill language as a given, so if a bill says "and, a few years from now, we will find $200 billion in spending cuts", CBO has to score it that way, even though everyone knows the chances of those cuts materializing are nil.

Because they are important issues. Also important is the awful, awful precedent this process has set - future Congresses, which will inevitably flip between parties, now have the door opened to this style of rmaming through legislation (imagine for a second if Bush and a Republican Congress had rammed through a privatization of Social Security under the same circumstances). And others.

No one has produced a satisfactory argument that it isn't socialism (or an affirmative step in the direction of socialized medicine).

Horseshit - 60% of the American public disapprove of the bill and it had bi-partisan support against it. The GOP had no reason to "sign on" to a bill that only the Social Democrats want. And, this bill isn't "meaningful reform" - setting aside that there are plenty of other reforms that this bill skipped.

That makes no sense.


Here's a riddle/question/scenario:

For 200+ years, people have been living in a house and those who make enough to do so have been paying money into a pool based on their income that is then redistributed amongst all of the household members in the forms of services that all members of the house can use, regardless of whether they paid or not. Everyone in the house is related to each other. Those who cannot pay, for a whole slew of reasons, would otherwise contract disease, resort to stealing, not bathe and stink up the house and so on, to the detriment of EVERYONE in the house.

The money in this pool is redistributed by a select few who have been voted into this "redistribution" position by all members of the house who chose to vote. These people are voted in based on how they say they will redistribute this money.

For many, many reasons, there are more and more people in the house every year whose fortunes are worsening. They cannot be kicked out of the house and as their fortunes worsen, the money they can put into the pool is less and less, while those who can put the most into the pool continue to make more and more money for reasons unrelated to the plight of the poor household members.

It's voting time and the money MUST be put into the pool because there have been incidents throughout the household's existence where the people claimed they would pay for certain services on their own w/o the input of the redistributors, but the money was mostly spent on themselves; the garbage was never taken out, the dishes never got done, laundry never got done and so on, until these things became a problem for everyone in the home. So the redistributors have given those in the household the power to pay for these services on their own but it didn't happen. So it's time to decide where the money goes and things in the household, while not horrendous, are not as good as they were in years past.

Should the people:
a) pocket all their money again?
b) spend it on fighting with the neighbors
c) spend it on a lawyer for one of the household members who got arrested for stealing some of the money in the pot?
d) spend it to call the plumber to fix the sink because he needs the job to stay afloat, even though you've already paid him to fix it before and he never actually fixed it right?
e) spend it on strawberry plants for the garden, even though it's nowhere near the right time of year to plant strawberries?
f) spend it on the plan that the redistributors have to clean up the poorest members of the house so everyone in the house doesn't have to smell their shit and catch some of the viruses the poor ones have picked up along the way?


The bill is "meaningful." The positive qualities can easily be listed (It is literally another thread).

Last August was when I realized the Republican party had no intention whatsoever of being bipartisan. Talk of "death panels" and the like was done by Republican leaders and never shouted down by other republicans. It was a game to win the election that is coming up. Republicans are not hiding this whatsoever. They intend to win by fear tactics.

To me, this is politics over governance pure and simple. And a HORRIBLE sign of the times.


Holy shit , I think they should move next door:)


And leave the rest of the family to deal with all the bullshit in the house? Your self-preservation instincts are finely honed, but I fear your familial relations are not.


quoted for emphasis.


You are not my family and my government is not my mother.


Pure nonsense.

Why should they have been bipartisan when they wanted none of it?


Because with word usage as per the American media and Democrat politicians, being "bipartisan" means agreeing with Democrats and deferring to what they want.

"Divisive" is another such word. Nancy Pelosi, for example, is not divisive (and heaven forbid anyone should call Obama divisive) but anyone disagreeing with her is, of course, "divisive."


Normally you don't miss the point so widely.


Welcome to socialism with health care and bank bailouts boys!!!


Yeah well, those death panels will happen and you should fear them.

You can denounce that as "scare tactics" and declare that anyone that warns people about them is a lunatic but that is an obvious attempt to frame the debate in a way that makes socialised healthcare a foregone conclusion.

So, hell no, they were not "bipartisan" and I reject your premises.